🚀 go-pugleaf

[If you're not interested in ethics or moral positions at all, skip this.]

woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware.
> One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and
> support.  Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-)
> is only part of service and support.  The other reason is if I am
> making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll
> gladly share that profit.
> Ethics are very slippery things.  I consider myself to have a good,
> concise, and coherent set of morals and ethics.  However, I do not
> feel obliged in any way to pay for shareware unless I am either making
> a good profit directly from its use, or unless I require good
> support.  I don't feel very obligated to pay for anything someone
> builds and offers to the world on terms they have little or no hope of
> enforcing.  If you truely wish to receive payment for your efforts,
> then make it a condition of the offer.  Don't publish your work in a
> free and widely distributed manner, then hope people will re-imburse
> you.  Remember, even the "shrink-wrap" license is considered by many
> to be un-enforcable, and shareware can have similar characteristics.

Frankly, these arguments sound very much like "it's OK to use shareware for
free because I can get away with it", and "I'll only pay if I can't get away
with using it for free". I hope I misunderstand your posting, but that's
how it sounds to me. Please also note that most shareware comes with a
contract that obligates you to pay if you use the software after a certain
trial period. These contracts may be unenforceable, but then the enforce-
ability of a contract nowadays is mainly related to the salary of the lawyers
involved, not to any state of moral appropriateness. Certainly the alleged
unenforceability of a contract does not free you from your ethical (moral)
duties.

> I subscribe to a philosophy which might be compared somewhat to that
> of Richard Stallman:  I don't believe I should have to pay for
> intellectual property, unless the "owner" is forces me to go through
> the motions of purchasing a license or commercial copy.  If you give
> your intellectual property to me, and then ask me to pay for it if I
> use it, you'll probably be left alone in the dust.  I believe
> knowledge, both in the direct form, and in some cases the
> implementation (eg. algorithms and programmes) should be freely, and
> easily, available.  ...

I agree with you that in most cases, knowledge should be freely and easily
available. I also agree that it is *good* for programs to be freely
available. I appreciate Stallman's ideas, if not always the way he
implements them. Note that Stallman does not advocate the use of others'
programs without their approval.
However, I *do* believe that the notion of *intellectual property* is
valid, insofar as it represents work and effort expended. That is, if
a person (or company) expends serious effort to create something (be it
research data or program implementations), they have a moral (and legal)
right to sell it. It is your right not to buy it. It is not your right
to use it for free, taking the work expended by its creator for granted
(and for free). It reminds me of plucking fruits from a tree someone else
has carefully nurtured, claiming that that other has no right to complain
because he neglected to put barbed wire around the tree. If that philosophy
prevails, the world will be a maze of barbed wire compounds, with untended
trees in between.

> ... It's too bad electronic representation of
> information has changed one of the fundamental concepts used over the
> centuries in managing knowledge and information.  In the end I believe
> it is for the better.  If I were a communist, or even more socialist
> than I already am, I might support a tax on electronic data media,
> similar to what musicians are advocating for cassette tapes (not that
> I think the musicians are communists!).  However, I believe there are
> far better ways to manage the problem.

I don't understand this at all. Would you mind explaining your point to
me by mail?

> Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the use of "free" software
> distributed over mediums such as USENET.  I will also contribute when
> and where I can.  I extend my gratitude and heartfelt thanks to those
> who do the same.
> -- 
> 						Greg A. Woods

So do I. On the other hand, I recognize that you can't make a living from
publishing free software. If all software were free, few people would be
in any position to write major programs. Remember that most authors of
"free" software, Usenet and otherwise, make their living writing software
"for pay".

For me, it all comes down to the principle of "value for value". One should
expect to give and receive commensurate value for value given, whether it
be manual labor, physical services, or intellectual work. You can give your
creation away, hoping for emotional gains (appreciation, approval by your
peers, a Feeling Of Rightousness, or whatever) in return, but you have no
right to obligate others to do the same. Claiming to make "no profit" from
something you took doesn't cut it; if it were worthless, you wouldn't use it
in the first place.
And yes, notions of value vary between people. If someone's idea of proper
value is unacceptable to me, I may not agree to an exchange. I will not take
his part, and refuse to give what he clearly expected to receive in return.
By my ethical standards, that would be Theft, and that has nothing to do
with laws and lawyers. For me, there is no moral justification for taking
the fruits of someone else's labor without compensation.

Sorry for getting a bit preachy towards the end here.
  -- perry

P.S.:	Don't you (Greg) think it's a little bit questionable to post something
	to comp.sources.d (only), and then try to send any follow-ups off to
	alt.flame? It's like saying "my posting rightfully belongs here, but
	anything you may say in reply is only a flame".
	Comp.sources.d may not be the right place for this discussion, but
	alt.flame is hardly it, either. I didn't flame you, and I expect to
	be taken as seriously as you expect to be taken in turn.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry The Cynic (Peter Kiehtreiber)		     perry@arkon.key.com
** What good signature isn't taken yet? **	   ...!pacbell!key!perry